Alex Woick writes:
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce plugin.
Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
: jm 5...; ./spamassassin -D -Lt /home/jm/DL/m346c7979.txt
...
Yes I did, and all the other backscatter is detected by vbounce fine:
whitelist_bounce_relays lxrouter.wombaz.localnet *.prima.de
But now I saw the Message-Id contained my local mail server name from
whitelist_bounce_relays:
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The lxrouter.wombaz.localnet can only
On Fri, June 6, 2008 14:33, Alex Woick wrote:
whitelist_bounce_relays lxrouter.wombaz.localnet *.prima.de
should be ok if its public dns
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
postfix add $myhostname here
For the time being, I solved the problem by removing
lxrouter.wombaz.localnet from
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce plugin.
Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
Perhaps a phrase like wasn't able to deliver your message could be
added to the
Alex Woick wrote:
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce
plugin. Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
Perhaps a phrase like wasn't able to deliver your message could be
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce
plugin. Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
Perhaps a phrase like wasn't able to deliver your message could be
added to the
Alex Woick wrote:
Just recently backscatter starts to hit me very bad, and I found out
that bounces generated by qmail are not detected by the vbounce
plugin. Here is such a backscatter mail:
http://pastebin.com/m346c7979
Perhaps a phrase like wasn't able to deliver your message could be
On Thursday 05 June 2008 23:34:42 mouss wrote:
the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA.
RFC 2822 says: every message SHOULD have a Message-ID: field.
i can't find the addition except the origin is a pre stoneage qmail server
here.
Well it says SHOULD. So actually your system is
On Thu, June 5, 2008 23:34, mouss wrote:
stop incriminating qmail. the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA. if
postfix adds a missing message-id, then it's a postfix problem, not a
qmail problem.
if qmail, if postfix, maybe he have 2 mta ? :-)
postfix add mta hostname to message-id if
Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
On Thursday 05 June 2008 23:34:42 mouss wrote:
the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA.
RFC 2822 says: every message SHOULD have a Message-ID: field.
i can't find the addition except the origin is a pre stoneage qmail server
here.
This has
Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Thu, June 5, 2008 23:34, mouss wrote:
stop incriminating qmail. the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA. if
postfix adds a missing message-id, then it's a postfix problem, not a
qmail problem.
if qmail, if postfix, maybe he have 2 mta ? :-)
so what?
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
On Thursday 05 June 2008 23:34:42 mouss wrote:
the Message-id must be supplied by the MUA.
RFC 2822 says: every message SHOULD have a Message-ID: field.
i can't find the addition except the origin is a pre stoneage qmail server
here.
On Friday 06 June 2008 00:11:37 mouss wrote:
postfix adds missing (mandatory) headers because it works as a
submission MTA, because this is how sendmail has always worked. This
behaviour is no more desirable for an MX (it is good for an MSA).
Right now i get your point. I thought you where
At 15:25 05-06-2008, David B Funk wrote:
However RFC-2821, section 6.3 (Compensating for Irregularities) says
that the originating SMTP server may add a message-id field when none
appears. So if qmail is the first SMTP server to fondle the message
it could/(should?) add a message-id.
It's up
14 matches
Mail list logo
